It's too early to tell whether this show will swing The West Wing or 24 territory, butt certainly could go either way, especially with the talks of treason at the very end. At least Tom Kirkman is nothing like Jack Bauer.

I hope it focuses more on a West Wing angle because that's what interests me about the show: how would we react if such a horrific moment occurred. Politically, civically, domestically, internationally, etc.

The FBI investigation is important to that story and I'm intrigued by the notion of it not being ISIS/Al Qaeda/Taliban. I also liked the explanation why it might not be them because it rang true, speaking as someone who lived in Brussels at the time of its attacks.

I just worry about the treason plotline, although considering Kevin McNally is only a guest star, perhaps it won't drag out too long. It's a prospect worth looking at because I can see something like that coming up, but I don't want it to be more than a brief flirtation.

Lets see how long it takes for the son to do something ?stupider? than what he already did. I would guess its going to be something not too political/serious but not so over-the-top silly? Glad to see Maggie Q working again but I just can't take her small frame serious as someone who can kickass. Everytime she fights I fear she would snap in half.
Pretty good first episode.

I've always wanted a season of 24 with Jack Bauer as President. This isn't it but I like it and I was thinking of The West Wing too. I think it'll be a little of that and 24. The title "Designated Survivor" might sound a little odd 5 seasons from now though.

Was wondering if this was going to get a thread. I liked the pilot, will see where it goes. Not sure if it settles into something normal, or goes 24 and tries to keep ramping things up and introducing plots within plots within plots until the thing just collapses...

This was a good pilot, with a great cast, good writing, and some interesting plots. I'm just hoping they don't go to over the top with the son getting into trouble all the time. I have to agree with @Emh about the treason plotline to, that has the potential to go off the rails pretty quickly. I am curious to see when we're going to learn who Maggie Q's character kept trying to call.

Another aspect that I really hope the show addresses instead of simply hand waving: All three branches of the government were abolished. Obviously, the immediate focus is on restoring the presidency, and in short order, the cabinet and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the latter of which was briefly referred to). Presumably the majority of Congress was present at the State of the Union; that's up to 535 elected offices suddenly vacated. What contingencies are in place for restoring the House and Senate? And until they're restored, the Supreme Court will also remain empty. Just imagine the confirmation hearings for filling up the entirety of the court by a single president.

Speaking of which, I don't recall any specific references to which political party Kirkman is part of. Perhaps they'll go the Veep route, although that seems unlikely.

Not sure if it settles into something normal, or goes 24 and tries to keep ramping things up and introducing plots within plots within plots until the thing just collapses...

Click to expand...

This is one of my biggest worries. I hope they allow the show to use this dramatic event as the starting point and let the story naturally grow from there, instead of artificially enforcing more and more ridiculous plots.

In real life, there is also supposed to be a member of the congressional leadership to act as the legislative designated survivor in order to provide guidance in the reconstitution of the legislative branch. Personally, I like the idea of Governors being able to choose temporary congressional replacements so that Congress can restart within a week instead of waiting for areas to hold special elections that may not even be feasible for months or years depending upon the chaos in a particular area.

Side note: it's completely ridiculous for the president to choose a guy who he is asking to resign to be the one to act as designated survivor. That's just a weird plot point to add to the show.

Does anybody else find it ridiculous that we still physically gather together all our most important elected and appointed officials in one room at regular intervals? And that we do it just for them to a hear a speech that they could easily watch from home?

Although, it's probably just as ridiculous that we keep all three of our constitutional branches of government in one city.

I can really see this show being a big success - the very low popularity of Congress, the SCOTUS, *and* both major party Presidential candidates probably means that people are going to want to watch a show where they've all been removed from the picture for quite some time to come.

Does anybody else find it ridiculous that we still physically gather together all our most important elected and appointed officials in one room at regular intervals? And that we do it just for them to a hear a speech that they could easily watch from home?

Although, it's probably just as ridiculous that we keep all three of our constitutional branches of government in one city.

Click to expand...

I do, yes - there should be a LOT more use of video conferencing. I'll leave it at that, because detailing my thoughts on that and other ways to reform our government in general could be a whole other thread, and I don't want to derail this one with it.

In real life, there is also supposed to be a member of the congressional leadership to act as the legislative designated survivor in order to provide guidance in the reconstitution of the legislative branch.

Click to expand...

I read about that after making that post. Still, that's only one person out more than 500.

Personally, I like the idea of Governors being able to choose temporary congressional replacements so that Congress can restart within a week instead of waiting for areas to hold special elections that may not even be feasible for months or years depending upon the chaos in a particular area.

Click to expand...

While doing some research on this, that's apparently what's suppose to happen, although only if said governors are appointed to choose such selections. Hopefully, we'll see Kirkman make such appointments.

Does anybody else find it ridiculous that we still physically gather together all our most important elected and appointed officials in one room at regular intervals? And that we do it just for them to a hear a speech that they could easily watch from home?

Click to expand...

Not really. We continue to do that because of tradition, and if nothing else, the United States loves its traditions.

I can really see this show being a big success - the very low popularity of Congress, the SCOTUS, *and* both major party Presidential candidates probably means that people are going to want to watch a show where they've all been removed from the picture for quite some time to come.

Click to expand...

I've been trying not to think of that, but you're absolutely right.

Although, aside from gutting the Voting Rights Act, SCOTUS isn't that unpopular right now. I'm not counting bigoted assholes who are pissed about same-sex marriage and similar decisions.

The point is most of their decisions are fairly popular and they're actually doing their jobs, despite the limitation the GOP House has imposed on them. They're far more popular than than Congress and the two candidates.

Governors can already appoint replacement Senators on an "as needed" basis. A call, probably as part of that speech we haven't seen, from the new President to have those same Governors quick convene their respective state legislatures and grant the same power re: lower house members.

Actually, I thought the response from people was pretty well portrayed. the Government is a well oiled machine when it comes to this sort of thing. There are provisions in place for a reason. Once something happens, to ensure we don't get overrun or are made to seem weak, those gears click into place pretty quickly. There will be time for sorrows later, much like 9/11. Add to that, the initial shock and adrenaline rush hasn't worn off yet. Once it does, and those involved have time to think about what has happened, the true scope of what has happened will sink in, again, much like 9/11.

I'm pretty impressed with the show so far. I'm hooked enough to tune in and see what happens. I'm not above thinking that this was an inside job of some sort. Either some kind of government coup or home grown terrorists.

Another aspect that I really hope the show addresses instead of simply hand waving: All three branches of the government were abolished. Obviously, the immediate focus is on restoring the presidency, and in short order, the cabinet and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the latter of which was briefly referred to). Presumably the majority of Congress was present at the State of the Union; that's up to 535 elected offices suddenly vacated. What contingencies are in place for restoring the House and Senate? And until they're restored, the Supreme Court will also remain empty. Just imagine the confirmation hearings for filling up the entirety of the court by a single president.

Click to expand...

I was so focused on Kirkman, that I honestly didn't even realize all of that. Hopefully this will be a part of the show.

Speaking of which, I don't recall any specific references to which political party Kirkman is part of. Perhaps they'll go the Veep route, although that seems unlikely.

This is one of my biggest worries. I hope they allow the show to use this dramatic event as the starting point and let the story naturally grow from there, instead of artificially enforcing more and more ridiculous plots.

Click to expand...

Mine too. I don't mind some big twists and turns, but I just want to them actually make sense, and build off of what's been going on rather than just sudden random stuff.

I really, really, really hope it's not Kirkman.

Click to expand...

Me too. That thought did cross my mind, but I hope that's not what it is. If they're just friends or something it might not be bad, but if it is him I really, really hope they aren't having an affair.

Does anybody else find it ridiculous that we still physically gather together all our most important elected and appointed officials in one room at regular intervals? And that we do it just for them to a hear a speech that they could easily watch from home?

Click to expand...

I honestly didn't realize all of the most powerful government figures were all there until I started seeing the promotion for this, it is a little scary.